Hold Congress Accountable

Knowledge is power. It makes sure people understand what is happening to their country, and how they can make a difference. FreedomWorks University will give you the tools to understand economics, the workings of government, the history of the American legal system, and the most important debates facing our nation today. Enroll in FreedomWorks University today!

Search FreedomWorks

Resources

Blog

RIP Steve Jobs: Here's to the Entrepreneur

Ever since I was a little kid, I have always been inspired by entrepreneurs who risked nearly everything to pursue their dreams. I usually had an idea for some new business venture up my sleeve as a middle schooler. While my babysitting or dog walking businesses weren’t as successful as I dreamed up in my head, it made me appreciate all the hard work entrepreneurs go through to get a business off the ground.

It wasn’t until later on that I learned about all the state licensing and regulations that hurt entrepreneurs. I probably would have never passionately pursued my business ideas if I knew about the massive loads of government paperwork and rules. My heart goes out to all of the little children who have had their lemonade stands shut down recently by police officers simply because they lack the “proper permits.” These kids, unfortunately, have learned a firsthand lesson about how state crushes the entrepreneurial spirit.

Entrepreneurs should be treated as heroes—not villains. Many of these brave individuals risk their entire life savings to market their ideas. Some will strike out on their own and others will achieve the American dream. The last thing we should want is for the state to punish entrepreneurs who enrich our lives with new products and services. Innovation takes place not because of government regulation, but in spite of it. That’s why I want to get government out of the way to enable entrepreneurs to thrive.

We lost one of the greatest entrepreneurs of our time last week. Apple creator Steve Jobs improved the lives of millions of Americans. He was born poor and achieved success through old fashioned hard work and determination. Steve Jobs contributed more to society than any government bureaucrat ever has. It is estimated that he generated as much as $30 billion annually in increased wealth for the U.S. economy. Steve Job’s innovation has made us all a little richer.

Some clues suggest that Steve Jobs may have been skeptical of government. On EconomicPolicyJournal.com, Robert Wenzel writes that Jobs was an original gold bug, stood up to a city council, drove his car without license plates and lobbied against legislation to classify lithium batteries as hazardous materials. It’s difficult to determine if Steve Jobs was a true blue libertarian but I do admire many of his efforts to reduce the scope of government.

Unlike most big corporations that lobby for more government regulations to hurt their competitors, Apple actually fought off the state. According to Robert Wenzel, “Apple also is part of the ‘Win America Campaign’ lobbying group that is calling for tax breaks for corporations who repatriate offshore earnings. Apple also signed up to a campaign against the US government's ability to inspect customer data on computers without warrant.”

Steve Jobs should prove that rich people are not inherently bad. While the Occupy Wall Street crowd is a mixed bag, many of the protesters are angry at the rich or the “1 percent.” Steve Jobs and many successful entrepreneurs who built a business from the ground up were/are in the top 1 percent of income earners. As the picture below shows, it’s inconsistent for protesters to denounce capitalists while using their iPhones that have enriched their lives. When a few of Steve Job’s business ventures failed along the way, he never asked Washington for a bailout. He was never “too-big-to-fail.”

Occupy Wall Street is right to protest the Wall Street bailouts (where were they in 2008?) but they should be celebrating “filthy-rich” entrepreneurs who never begged for a government handout. As the descendant of immigrants who came to America to escape communism in Eastern Europe, I still believe in the American Dream. We should all recognize that there is something truly special about a place where a poor boy that is born out of wedlock can grow up to be a billionaire through hard work and willpower. I worry that the government is preventing future generations of children from obtaining the same success in their lifetimes.

Actually, Jobs was a liberal, and would disagree with many of the views stated in this forum. Clearly, he was responsible for millions of good paying jobs as well as fantastic technology innovation. RIP Steve Jobs.

Additionally, though their message is a bit muddled, I think it is unfair that many characterize the Occupy wall street protesters as being angry at the rich because they are rich (although I think your characterization is more fair). I think that their foundational issue is a political and economic structure that has unfairly favored the rich and powerful at the expense of the middle class, as evidenced by median middle class income falling some 7% in the last decade, and a nearly $2 billion wealth transfer to the banksters who defrauded the american people with fraudulent derivatives (mortgage backed securities). The banksters then payed themselves huge bonuses with bailout money, thereby thumbing their noses at the American people. The remainder of the bailout money continues to sit in bank coffers, enriching the banks, rather than being lent to qualified businesses and individuals to get the economy moving forward. Like the unsustainable debt we are accruing, the growing wealth inequality as well as disproportional influence that the rich and powerful have over government are issues that affect all Americans whether they be liberal or conservative.

Hi, Julie! I'm a Libertarian like you, but I have a more nuanced view of Steve Jobs and Apple.

While I admire him for his entrepreneurship and innovation, I believe it is important to look at his policies in running Apple. Apple places many restrictions on software developers, which is why they lost majority market share to Microsoft in the early nineties despite an early lead in the market. While this is intended to improve quality, it is an example of Apple's tendency toward control.

What is truly disturbing is that Apple reserves the right to remove applications from your device remotely, without consent, and they also monitor many of your actions, often not admitting it until it is discovered and made public. Of course, most other proprietary software companies, including Microsoft and Google, similarly violate privacy without consent. This is part of the ever-growing legal trend to use license agreements to circumvent individual rights, but that is another issue.

Apple has also recently sued competitors for making tablets that "look too similar" to the iPad and for running Android, which it claims to be in violation of its intellectual property because it displays grids of icons, something that Apple apparently considers to be its exclusive right, despite having been used by every major desktop operating system since Apple itself borrowed the idea from Xerox.

Unfortunately, Apple is likely to win these suits because the definition of intellectual property has been broadened so much in the last thirty years due to the efforts of software companies, Hollywood, and the music industry, that almost anything can be considered to be in violation of many patents. One of the patents Apple used in the case against Samsung is so broad that any operating system or device with a wireless internet connection technically infringes. We need IP reform just as much as we need reform in other areas.

I honestly find the story of Steve Jobs rather sad. I believe he honestly wanted to make a positive difference, and believed in the philosophy put forth in Apple's "1984" ad, but ultimately his tendency toward control caused Apple to become everything that they had said they were fighting against in the beginning.

Sorry to be so negative and long-winded, but I believe these issues are important.

On Wednesday, the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee held a hearing (more of a grilling) as Mylan’s CEO, Heather Bresch, the daughter of Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) took to the floor to give a defense of the EpiPen’s price hikes and to receive a verbal smackdown from an assortment of legislators.

FreedomWorks Foundation drove more than 21,000 responses against new rules proposed by the U.S. Department of Education that would implement parts of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) that was passed by Congress in December 2015 and signed into law by President Barack Obama. The comment period for the proposed rules ended on Monday, August 1.

Last month, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) announced a new proposed rule designed to line the pockets of trial lawyers. The seemingly innocuous rule would effectively outlaw certain contractual provisions related to consumer financial products. But rather than protecting consumers, this proposed rule was about helping trial lawyers, a special interest that overwhelmingly supports Democrats like President Obama. Now, you have the opportunity to comment on this rule and tell the CFPB to stay out of your financial decisions.

Following the announcement of a bipartisan letter spearheaded by Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.) and co-signed by 176-member of the House urging leadership to bring to the floor a joint resolution to end the USDA catfish inspection program, FreedomWorks Director of Government Relations Neil Siefring commented:

In August 2015, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), in a departure from decades of precedent, unilaterally redefined what it means to be an employer. In the administrative decision, Browning-Ferris v NLRB, the unelected NLRB decreed that some employers were responsible for the employees of others. This action threatens to destroy the franchise model of business, harming job creation and putting 40,000 small businesses at risk. The difficulties for small business created by this decision are highlighted today in a Senate Small Business Committee hearing.

Did you know that there is an agency in Washington, DC able to wield the full power of the federal government, but whose director cannot be removed and is not answerable to the president, whose funding is not controlled by Congress, and whose decisions are difficult to challenge in court? Did you know that this agency is almost completely exempted from the Constitution’s check and balances? Did you know that this unaccountable power is vested in a single person? And did you know that this single person’s appointment was made illegally?

In 2010, Congress passed, and President Obama signed into law, a massive 2,300-page banking regulatory bill called the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The premise of Dodd-Frank was to prevent another financial crisis and, as the title suggests, reform regulation of Wall Street. Like many well-intentioned laws, however, Dodd-Frank in the hands of the regulatory state has turned into a crushing burden, highlighted today in a House Small Business Committee hearing titled “Bearing the Burden: Overregulation Impact on Small Banks and Rural Communities.” Rather than ending the situation where a few massive banking institutions were “too big to fail,” Dodd-Frank has actually entrenched the big banks at the top of the heap while crushing small community banks and credit unions.

Liberty Kitty has learned the hard way that overcriminalization and excessive regulation ruins lives and hurts the economy. She was prevented from grooming neighborhood kittens because she did not have the time or money it would take to become licensed, and she was incarcerated for 7 cat years under a mandatory minimum sentencing law for a non-violent crime.

In 1995, the Internet began, in earnest, as a commercial endeavor. Since that time, its growth has been explosive. Starting with only 16 million users that first year, the Internet now has over 3.4 billion users today—almost half the world’s population.